HAH! Creative Assembly just doesn't give a fuck anymore.

[subskipper]

What I think people need to acknowledge is the fact that it's not just a cash grab scheme to fleece us of money. That's obviously one of the prime factors of making any game, ever, but as pointed out DLC is one way of mitigating risks and keeping dev teams consistent over time bybspreading out the income a bit. Devwloping games is a complex process, especially for PC and costs a shitload of money.

 

[Lawbringer]

Edit: another comparison, imagine if you were going to see Avengers and they cut every scene the Hulk appears in and advertise that he only appears in the "super deluxe movie ticket", and then cut additional 30 minutes of film which isn't necessary to the plot.

This already happens when it's released to DVD/bluray:
Theatrical Release Edition
Uncut Edition
Director's Cut
Extended Edition
Special Edition
Remastered Edition

And so on...and so forth....!

I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but it's still bits cut out that can be released via various editions later.

 

[Amaror]

What I think people need to acknowledge is the fact that it's not just a cash grab scheme to fleece us of money. That's obviously one of the prime factors of making any game, ever, but as pointed out DLC is one way of mitigating risks and keeping dev teams consistent over time bybspreading out the income a bit. Devwloping games is a complex process, especially for PC and costs a shitload of money.

There's a difference between a blatant cash-grab and good dlc.
I always like to take paradox interactive as an example. The team also gets a good amount of it's income from dlc's but the fans don't complain about it, because the dlc's are worth it.
Each content dlc brings entirely new gameplay mechanics or massive overhauls of the game. Additionally the dlc are priced accordingly to how much content they provide. It's not perfect, i personally thing the cosmetic and sound dlc should be about one dollar each instead of two, since there are so many of them, but then i can just wait for a sale, since they don't really change anything important in the game. Just the visuals and music a bit.
Compare that to Creative Assembly with pre-order dlcs costing 7,50 for just three new factions with few unique units. And as far as i can tell they don't any new gameplay besides that, aside a few mission objectives and that one event-chain that longbeards supposedly provides. It just doesn't seem that worth it.

 

[Rolaoi]

People continue to buy their DLC. It's not CA's fault their customers have no dignity.

 

[Bombiz]

You know... I remember picking up the complete Medieval 2 collection for like thirty dollars about six months after Kingdoms came out. Kingdoms barely cost more than a single one of the campaign expansions in Rome 2... and adds way more content. Creative Assembly has just turned Total War into their cash-cow. It's a disgrace. I remember all of the free factions they promised for Rome 2, we got like two right? The rest were all over-priced DLC packs. Creative Assembly better not fuck up Warhammer with shitty DLC practices.

@Elfgore theirs already 2 total war warhammer games. [http://www.moddb.com/mods/call-of-warhammer-total-war]. They're both mods for Medieval 2 so you need that but it's worth it. if you have any question about installing these mods just pm me. I'll be more then happy to help.

 

[baddude1337]

I thought it was clear they stopped caring when the forcefully updated Rome: Total war and Medieval 2: Total War on Steam, completely breaking most if not all mods for the Steam versions of the game. And all for keeping multiplayer that perhaps a handful of people played, compared to the scores of people who use sites like Total War Centre every day. Just Glad I have the disc versions of both games.

 

[DoPo]

Edit: another comparison, imagine if you were going to see Avengers and they cut every scene the Hulk appears in and advertise that he only appears in the "super deluxe movie ticket", and then cut additional 30 minutes of film which isn't necessary to the plot.

The comparison does not hold up, unless you have definite proof the DLC was supposed to go in the main game.

A more accurate comparison is probably going to see the movie but the "super deluxe edition" is extra shooting time. You know, after everybody had finished doing everything, movie is getting released in a fortnight or so[footnote]it's being copied, distributed, put on reels or whatever it is that's actually done after finishing the shooting and before the movie hits the theaters[/footnote], you round up the camera guys, the actors, the various other people involved and go "While we're waiting for the movie to hit the cinemas I wrote them a day ago".

 

[babinro]

Why is timely DLC a bad thing?

DLC is planned internally LONG before the game is launched. What's the point in stringing players along for an arbitrary 3-6 months before releasing DLC? This only HURTS the consumer since it restricts their options until after they might have lost interest.

Creative Assembly is doing DLC right.

 

[Trivun]

I'm just going to post this here, because it seems that nobody listens even now, ages after this image should have become common knowledge and understanding...

Spoiler

For my part, I haven't played Atilla yet, but I also haven't played through Rome 2. When I get a new PC, one that can run current-gen games without a problem, I'll definitely pick them both up, but for now this doesn't really bother me all that much...

I strongly disagree, it's like saying I am entitled if I want a car with air bags, despite them not being "mandatory". Even if it's extra developement time, then it might have been accepted if the regular product was acceptable in quality but it seems AAA games get worse technically and are shorter with each passing year.

Edit: another comparison, imagine if you were going to see Avengers and they cut every scene the Hulk appears in and advertise that he only appears in the "super deluxe movie ticket", and then cut additional 30 minutes of film which isn't necessary to the plot.

I would say that both of your arguments are completely different to the nature of what's being debated here. In the case of a car airbag, it might hold some merit if airbags had never been invented, and were being produced from scratch, but they already have been and so in modern car construction they are considered part of the main design/production process - not 'DLC', as it were. I realise that DLC isn't necessarily created from scratch, on that note, however many elements are - for example, consider Assassin's Creed 4's DLC, Freedom Cry. The core mechanics were the same as the main game, but then you had multiple new characters (and thus new voice actors, new models, etc.), a new set of programming rules to apply to the new weapon (the Blunderbuss), a whole new map including new towns, none of which were part of the main game - thus created nearly from scratch.

In the Avengers example, again, the creation of any scene in which the Hulk appears would be part of the main development of the film, since they'd have already hired the actor, and the CGI would be put together alongside the rest of the CGI from the film (Thor's Hammer, for instance, or the Chitauri invasion). And if they did cut 30 mins of film that wasn't necessary, then yes, that would be a problem - however, that's not the same as creating an extra 30 mins later on (at expense) while the main film is in the editing stages and being promoted ready for release at cinemas. Which is what's happened here.

 

[ceyan]

Why is timely DLC a bad thing?

DLC is planned internally LONG before the game is launched. What's the point in stringing players along for an arbitrary 3-6 months before releasing DLC? This only HURTS the consumer since it restricts their options until after they might have lost interest.

Creative Assembly is doing DLC right.

Having DLC planned well in advance is great. Having DLC all done and ready 1 week after release is either DLC that needs more content than a single reskin of one item, or DLC that was made for release and just pushed back to avoid flooding the market. If you're fine with the idea that production work done after gold but prior to release is something that should be charged extra for, then there isn't anything really wrong with this DLC. If you think production work done on a game prior to retail release is something that should be included in the retail release, then it's absolutely shitty DLC.

Edit:
To be fair, I don't mind paying for work done prior to the retail release, as long as it is part of work done over 6+ months for an entire expansion rather than pathetic day one or week one dlc.

 

[Megalodon]

I'm just going to post this here, because it seems that nobody listens even now, ages after this image should have become common knowledge and understanding...

Spoiler

For my part, I haven't played Atilla yet, but I also haven't played through Rome 2. When I get a new PC, one that can run current-gen games without a problem, I'll definitely pick them both up, but for now this doesn't really bother me all that much...

I strongly disagree, it's like saying I am entitled if I want a car with air bags, despite them not being "mandatory". Even if it's extra developement time, then it might have been accepted if the regular product was acceptable in quality but it seems AAA games get worse technically and are shorter with each passing year.

Edit: another comparison, imagine if you were going to see Avengers and they cut every scene the Hulk appears in and advertise that he only appears in the "super deluxe movie ticket", and then cut additional 30 minutes of film which isn't necessary to the plot.

Are you implying you'd rather have a good chunk of the dev team fired once their part of their work on the main game is done rather than have them work on day 1 DLC during testing?

Sounds like really shitty job security.

To be honest, with Day 1/quick DLC, I'd rather they just upped the base price of the game and bundled the DLC in for 'free'. This is especially true for companies (like EA) that don't put their DLC on sale.

As for this particular issue, it's gouging, pure and simple imo. The game's been out a week and already has more than a third of it's base cost in DLC? Bullshit, just charge £40 and call it a day. This whole 'playable factions as DLC' thing CA have been doing for their recent games is the principal reason I haven't bought them.

 

[babinro]

Why is timely DLC a bad thing?

DLC is planned internally LONG before the game is launched. What's the point in stringing players along for an arbitrary 3-6 months before releasing DLC? This only HURTS the consumer since it restricts their options until after they might have lost interest.

Creative Assembly is doing DLC right.

Having DLC planned well in advance is great. Having DLC all done and ready 1 week after release is either DLC that needs more content than a single reskin of one item, or DLC that was made for release and just pushed back to avoid flooding the market. If you're fine with the idea that production work done after gold but prior to release is something that should be charged extra for, then there isn't anything really wrong with this DLC. If you think production work done on a game prior to retail release is something that should be included in the retail release, then it's absolutely shitty DLC.

Edit:
To be fair, I don't mind paying for work done prior to the retail release, as long as it is part of work done over 6+ months for an entire expansion rather than pathetic day one or week one dlc.

My stance is simply that I don't care about the timing of this internal work. I'm forced to accept that DLC is something that exists in gaming like it or not. The days of having everything unlockable in game for free are gone...it sucks but that's reality. With that out of the way I now look at things as a consumer...would I rather wait a week for DLC options or months? This answers itself IMO. I want the content at the peak of when I'm playing a game.

My entire opinion on this comes with a caveat of course. DLC must never feel like it's mandatory. The core game has to feel complete without it. That's how I've always viewed DLC be it on disk or released a year later. We seem to agree on this point.

An example of DLC done WRONG seems to be Evolve. I'm not actually against how much DLC was released or the pricing of it...but from what I've seen from reviews (Angry Joe primarily)...the core gameplay modes are shallow and you don't feel like you're getting a $60.00 game experience. Even WITH the DLC the game feels very shallow. This implies that too much time was spent on DLC at the expense of the core game.

Take the exact same DLC market flooding and attach this to a game like Skyrim at it's launch and you'd be hard pressed to say the core game felt shallow or lacking.

 

[ceyan]

Why is timely DLC a bad thing?

DLC is planned internally LONG before the game is launched. What's the point in stringing players along for an arbitrary 3-6 months before releasing DLC? This only HURTS the consumer since it restricts their options until after they might have lost interest.

Creative Assembly is doing DLC right.

Having DLC planned well in advance is great. Having DLC all done and ready 1 week after release is either DLC that needs more content than a single reskin of one item, or DLC that was made for release and just pushed back to avoid flooding the market. If you're fine with the idea that production work done after gold but prior to release is something that should be charged extra for, then there isn't anything really wrong with this DLC. If you think production work done on a game prior to retail release is something that should be included in the retail release, then it's absolutely shitty DLC.

Edit:
To be fair, I don't mind paying for work done prior to the retail release, as long as it is part of work done over 6+ months for an entire expansion rather than pathetic day one or week one dlc.

My stance is simply that I don't care about the timing of this internal work. I'm forced to accept that DLC is something that exists in gaming like it or not. The days of having everything unlockable in game for free are gone...it sucks but that's reality. With that out of the way I now look at things as a consumer...would I rather wait a week for DLC options or months? This answers itself IMO. I want the content at the peak of when I'm playing a game.

My entire opinion on this comes with a caveat of course. DLC must never feel like it's mandatory. The core game has to feel complete without it. That's how I've always viewed DLC be it on disk or released a year later. We seem to agree on this point.

An example of DLC done WRONG seems to be Evolve. I'm not actually against how much DLC was released or the pricing of it...but from what I've seen from reviews (Angry Joe primarily)...the core gameplay modes are shallow and you don't feel like you're getting a $60.00 game experience. Even WITH the DLC the game feels very shallow. This implies that too much time was spent on DLC at the expense of the core game.

Take the exact same DLC market flooding and attach this to a game like Skyrim at it's launch and you'd be hard pressed to say the core game felt shallow or lacking.

In the Evolve case it breaks down to whether you consider "deluxe" editions to be DLC or not. As far as I'm aware that's how you get the extra monster at the moment, instead of through a separate "DLC" package. I don't have a problem with the rest of the stuff for Evolve because it's all cosmetic, but then again I see reviews of Evolve being "shallow" and don't understand how it's any different than Call of Duty, Battlefield, Counterstrike, or even other games like Hearthstone.

However based on your opinion here shouldn't you be upset about this DLC? It's DLC that you need to open up new factions and play on different areas of the map with different paths to success. It is probably very lightweight in terms of work to implement but has a significant affect on options to play the game compared to someone who doesn't have the DLC.

 

[Megalodon]

I'm just going to post this here, because it seems that nobody listens even now, ages after this image should have become common knowledge and understanding...

Spoiler

For my part, I haven't played Atilla yet, but I also haven't played through Rome 2. When I get a new PC, one that can run current-gen games without a problem, I'll definitely pick them both up, but for now this doesn't really bother me all that much...

I strongly disagree, it's like saying I am entitled if I want a car with air bags, despite them not being "mandatory". Even if it's extra developement time, then it might have been accepted if the regular product was acceptable in quality but it seems AAA games get worse technically and are shorter with each passing year.

Edit: another comparison, imagine if you were going to see Avengers and they cut every scene the Hulk appears in and advertise that he only appears in the "super deluxe movie ticket", and then cut additional 30 minutes of film which isn't necessary to the plot.

Are you implying you'd rather have a good chunk of the dev team fired once their part of their work on the main game is done rather than have them work on day 1 DLC during testing?

Sounds like really shitty job security.

To be honest, with Day 1/quick DLC, I'd rather they just upped the base price of the game and bundled the DLC in for 'free'. This is especially true for companies (like EA) that don't put their DLC on sale.

As for this particular issue, it's gouging, pure and simple imo. The game's been out a week and already has more than a third of it's base cost in DLC? Bullshit, just charge £40 and call it a day. This whole 'playable factions as DLC' thing CA have been doing for their recent games is the principal reason I haven't bought them.

Except that's not really possible either. DLC of that kind is often made while the game is in testing and being submitted to the ESRB and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. It'd be pretty dishonest to develop additional content intended for the main game as that game is being judged and approved for release.

That and there's often a chunk of time between when the game disks are being manufactured, when the game is shipped to stores and reviewers and the release date. It's kinda too late to add stuff to the main game when the main game is already being pressed on disks.

I don't see how what I propose isn't possible. Assuming the devs/publisher actually know what DLC is going to be released, I don't see what submission to ESRB etc. has to do with anything. Free DLC exists, Day One DLC exists, free Day One DLC also exists, the ESRB is not a barrier to any of these currently. Turning paid dlc into free dlc shouldn't rustle the jimmies of any authorisation body.

Is the price pressed on the disk? I just don't understand what you're getting at here. To use ME3 as an example, they knew the Prothean DLC was being released at the same time as the rest of ME3. I would have found it more honest (and therefore preferred it) of Bioware/EA if they had simply charged me £45 for the entire thing, instead of making me muck around with MS points etc. and make 2 smaller payments for the complete product. I fail to see what's so impossible about that (other than companies actually deciding to do it)

 

[Megalodon]

Yeah, turning it from paid to free probably wont hurt, but turning from DLC to actual on disk main game content while the main game has been sent for certification might.

Doesn't that strike you as kind of dishonest?

Doesn't that happen anyway at the moment, Capcom especially iirc have taken a lot of flak for shipping disks with 'dlc' on them? Hell. wasn't the Prothean DLC also found to use substantial on disk assets? Besides, I assume certification boards are also told about day 1 dlc, what I am proposing does not change that system in the slightest.

The price isn't pressed on the disk, but the content is. You can't exactly include content with a game, either on the main game's disk itself, or with a code or something included in the box, if that content is still being developed while the game is being manufactured and shipped.

So? If the DLC is ready within a week of the game being released, then it seems a safe assumption that the devs/publishers know that content exists beforehand. So they are capable of folding the cost of that dlc into the cost of the base game. Hell, that would make Atilla around £40 (not exactly an unusual RRP on Steam these days) rather than £30. What's so hard to understand here? The devs know about the DLC they are making. All I'm saying is that content being included in the base price of the game would be better imo than the nickel and diming we see today.

 

[Inglorious891]

snip

Considering how badly CA fucked up Rome 2, I'm not surprised.

After all the DLC, lies before the game's initial release, buggy launches, and the fact that Rome 2 is a shit game even when it's running smoothly, I've completely lost faith in them. Sega is milking the franchise for all it's worth and CA just isn't making good games anymore, and without Darth Vader to come in and fix everything I see no point in buying anything from them.

 

[gigastar]

DLC announced for a game thats only been out for a week?

Where were you when Evolve was running roughshod over everything with its DLC leaked before the game was announced proper?

 

[Megalodon]

Yeah, turning it from paid to free probably wont hurt, but turning from DLC to actual on disk main game content while the main game has been sent for certification might.

Doesn't that strike you as kind of dishonest?

Doesn't that happen anyway at the moment, Capcom especially iirc have taken a lot of flak for shipping disks with 'dlc' on them? Hell. wasn't the Prothean DLC also found to use substantial on disk assets? Besides, I assume certification boards are also told about day 1 dlc, what I am proposing does not change that system in the slightest.

That's a completely different issue. You're talking about publishers selling you a few KB of data to unlock content already present on the disk.

I'm talking about the devs submitting one version of their game for certification from the big three, and then shipping and selling a different version with new content that wasn't present for the certification build.

Nowhere does selling on disk DLC come into play, it's an example to show you that your idea of "just bundle it and sell it for a higher price" doesn't work.

Then how does dlc get by the certification boards now? My proposition does not change anything other than the pricing system.

So? If the DLC is ready within a week of the game being released, then it seems a safe assumption that the devs/publishers know that content exists beforehand. So they are capable of folding the cost of that dlc into the cost of the base game. Hell, that would make Atilla around £40 (not exactly an unusual RRP on Steam these days) rather than £30. What's so hard to understand here? The devs know about the DLC they are making. All I'm saying is that content being included in the base price of the game would be better imo than the nickel and diming we see today.

Except that it's not really possible to bundle Content B with Game A if Content B is still being developed while Game A's disks are being pressed and shipped. And it would be bad from a business standpoint to add the content in after the game has been submitted for certification.

I'll try one more time. I don't know where you're getting either this 'bundle content B with Game A if Content B is still being developed' or 'certification boards wouldn't stand for it' ideas. All I'm saying is 'do exactly what you're doing now, but charge a bit more up front and make the new content (which, as publisher, you know is being made) available without additional payment'. Esentially, it's sort of like an automatic, limited Season Pass (which seem to exist no trouble now), so you get the early DLC, which carries the greatest 'nickel and diming' stigma atm included with your initial purchase.

Now I'm not saying this is ideal, but I would find it a bit more straightforward and honest from devs/publishers.

If you want an actual reason why this idea wouldn't be adopted, try what Extra Credits called the 'JC Penny' effect. Essentially, consumers seem to think £30 and £10 separately feels cheaper than £40.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

The answer to your second question is yes.

Is Attila better than Rome II? On a mechanical level, it certainly is. But Attila is a much harder game, there are lots of reports of veteran players abandoning Very Hard ("The only way to play Rome 2" if you believe them) and going so far as to play on normal difficulty, because the game is punishing. Both Romes suffer, the migratory people are hounded by the Huns, the Germanic peoples have some easy pickings in the Roman provinces but struggle to get their economy going... Only the Sassanids seem to be an easy start and that makes them feel more like playing Rome in Rome 2.

If you like the idea of playing a game in which you constantly feel that you are fighting an uphill struggle and like Total War games in general, then Attila is a great game. If you prefer the more traditional "Start from scratch and paint the map in your chosen color"-style of play form previous Total Wars, Attila might not be your cup of tea.

The pleasure I got from Total War seemed to stem largely from Medieval 2's RPG like elements with characters and family trees...the sometimes random, sometimes inherited traits would drive the character of a campaign. That element was progressively streamlined out in later games, and I found myself playing very pretty and utterly disinteresting RTS skirmish battles.

Has Attila done anything to put this element back in? Or is it just a less janky Rome 2?

There's a ginormous focus on traits this time around, the way you operate your ruling class has been reworked since Rome 2, meaning you can actually have an effect on your family.

 

[Scow2]

I'm just going to post this here, because it seems that nobody listens even now, ages after this image should have become common knowledge and understanding...

Spoiler

For my part, I haven't played Atilla yet, but I also haven't played through Rome 2. When I get a new PC, one that can run current-gen games without a problem, I'll definitely pick them both up, but for now this doesn't really bother me all that much...

I strongly disagree, it's like saying I am entitled if I want a car with air bags, despite them not being "mandatory". Even if it's extra developement time, then it might have been accepted if the regular product was acceptable in quality but it seems AAA games get worse technically and are shorter with each passing year.

Have you never actually tried buying a car? They come with all sorts of options and addons that some people would consider important (Higher-quality seats, air conditioning, onboard computer interfaces, etc), when they're really not part of the base product.

In the past, before DLC, we did get games with massive chunks cut out due to time/budget constraints. We just had to deal with it, instead of pay extra for the extra dev work.

Yeah, turning it from paid to free probably wont hurt, but turning from DLC to actual on disk main game content while the main game has been sent for certification might.

Doesn't that strike you as kind of dishonest?

Doesn't that happen anyway at the moment, Capcom especially iirc have taken a lot of flak for shipping disks with 'dlc' on them? Hell. wasn't the Prothean DLC also found to use substantial on disk assets? Besides, I assume certification boards are also told about day 1 dlc, what I am proposing does not change that system in the slightest.

That's a completely different issue. You're talking about publishers selling you a few KB of data to unlock content already present on the disk.

I'm talking about the devs submitting one version of their game for certification from the big three, and then shipping and selling a different version with new content that wasn't present for the certification build.

Nowhere does selling on disk DLC come into play, it's an example to show you that your idea of "just bundle it and sell it for a higher price" doesn't work.

Then how does dlc get by the certification boards now? My proposition does not change anything other than the pricing system.

Because DLC is much faster to get through certification boards if it's ever sent at all (Which it may not be). It can take over a month for a game to get certified.

I'll try one more time. I don't know where you're getting either this 'bundle content B with Game A if Content B is still being developed' or 'certification boards wouldn't stand for it' ideas. All I'm saying is 'do exactly what you're doing now, but charge a bit more up front and make the new content (which, as publisher, you know is being made) available without additional payment'. Esentially, it's sort of like an automatic, limited Season Pass (which seem to exist no trouble now), so you get the early DLC, which carries the greatest 'nickel and diming' stigma atm included with your initial purchase.

Because you're proving the game works without the DLC - why force people to buy something they won't be getting immediately?